Anyway, I let Fared pull me off message. My point is, there is no agreed upon definition of "assault weapon." What exactly is being restricted with these new regulations? What about our old regulations is inadequate? As Ishikawa and others have pointed out, its usually not the owner of the gun committing these crimes so what is adding new restrictions to them going to do? Gun control sounds like a good idea on paper, but it doesn't seem well thought out.

The government must ban or heavily regulate the ownership of firearms as gun violence will continue, or even increase, as long as such weapons are allowed by the American constitution.

2 notes:

1. Historical weapons
2. Entertainment shoots

As to point 1, many historical weapons (MG42, MP40, Thompson, STEN, Vickers ect...) are fully automatic. banning all full auto guns would mean these guns would either have to be destroyed, or altered in such a way that it damages their historical value. Too many times in the UK, stashes of rare weapons have been totally destroyed by overzealous police forces. Surely some consideration must be taken for these too?

And to point 2, I direct you to this video.

this is generally classified as a Shitload of fun. These people plan to hurt nobody, and in relation to point 1 many of the guns they shoot are historic. These people collect them and like to show them off at gatherings like this. Where else will you see a German WW2 MG34 anti-air mount shooting down RC planes? Again, do you turn round and demand these people hand in their entertainment and passions, on the off chance that it MIGHT save peoples lives later down the line?

At the end of the day what are the majority of gun crimes in the US committed with? Handguns. Not miniguns, or anti-tank rifles, or sub-machine guns. Handguns. If anything needs to be regulated more, it's handgun ownership. THAT is the gun law that would make the most impact.

On top of that, US society needs to change too. It's not the only change that is needed, but it is essential if we want to see a reduction in these sorts of heinous crimes.

It is of my opinion that liberals in the United States are interested in changing laws asap because they see a problem, and the easiest way to fix the problem is to pass a law that involves more regulation the the government.

I will give a local example. Much to Europeans' surprise, there are cities that have liberal culture. I live near a few of those cities. One of them is the kind of liberal that has a bunch of white people who proclaim diversity, have artistic and scientific elitists, the university students are your typical "I am enlightened and that makes my opinion worth something" types, they think that all conservatives are gun-loving gay bashing idiots, and, well, you get the picture.

Anyways. Last year or so, they decided to pass a law that required cars to stop at all crosswalks (that are not connected to regular traffic lights) if there was at least one person who needed to cross. When the law was first established, there were no crosswalk signs or lights or anything. So naturally, police gave tickets to a crap load of people for not remembering their stupid and impractical law.

Granted, now for the most part they have the proper lights and signals to indicate crosswalks and when people will be crossing. But they passed the law before they had the proper equipment to make the law practical.

So why did they pass it in such a rush?

Well, because in the progressive mindset, if you see a problem, a law needs to be passed about it right away, even if it doesn't make sense to pass it. They saw that people couldn't cross crosswalks in a reasonable amount of time, so instead of taking the time to build traffic lights at those crosswalks, they decided to blame the big mean cars and punish them for being big mean cars.

For liberals, passing a law like that is "fixing the problem," except all that it is doing is putting a bandaid on the problem, which doesn't do a whole lot of good for anyone. At least since it was a local law, it was easier to actually perform the surgery needed after a while, but I think that if people didn't complain about it, the city would have just kept the bandaid.

So in regards to this topic, regulating gun control even more in a society that has several other problems, such as:
Lack of awareness of mental health treatment
The expense of treating mental health issues
The lack of a significant father figure in the CT shooter's life
Broken families and divorce rates
Violent movies and video games (now before you yell at me, I think that banning these things is stupid. However, moms need to stop buying their angelic sons Call of Duty when they are only 10).
The media's reaction to shooters - the way that they become famous after committing such a horrible crime

Perhaps there are more factors that I am not taking into consideration.

Also, requiring that guns be locked up would not be a bad idea. Not sure how many people are going to obey that law and how they are going to regulate it, but at least encouraging people to do that might make a difference.

As you state in your last line sally, about obeying and regulating more gun bans. In the UK Guns have been fairly limited since the early 20th century. And as such it's very easy to control who has what and where, as it's not as common.

In the US there's over 200 million firearms, many of which are ALREADY illegal. Policing such a ban would be highly impractical, expensive, and likely would make little impact on the overall numbers.

Good point sally. While not related on guns that is a pretty good explanation of the problems of both sides. The right (at least here) generally is overly traditional or generalises heavilly (My dad thinks Thatcher was the greatest prime minister of all time, but they all miss out the failures of here policies in te first few years, such as doubling the unemployment figures) and ignore situational differences, while the more leftest or liberal sides will see the issues as they are but not put in a significant counterbalance for long term benefit, which is why we saw labour encouraging the banks to lend heavilly under Blair but that lead to the credit crunch. When trying to think of my own policies, I try to look at the situation, the idea, what the idea will do, and how to avoid the problems. Sadly politics currently doesnt seem to do that very well.

Good point sally. While not related on guns that is a pretty good explanation of the problems of both sides. The right (at least here) generally is overly traditional or generalises heavilly (My dad thinks Thatcher was the greatest prime minister of all time, but they all miss out the failures of here policies in te first few years, such as doubling the unemployment figures) and ignore situational differences, while the more leftest or liberal sides will see the issues as they are but not put in a significant counterbalance for long term benefit, which is why we saw labour encouraging the banks to lend heavilly under Blair but that lead to the credit crunch. When trying to think of my own policies, I try to look at the situation, the idea, what the idea will do, and how to avoid the problems. Sadly politics currently doesnt seem to do that very well.

First, I have already rebutted all this and it would have saved you a lot of time to have just read that, rather rehashing the same tired and ill-thoughtout defences of what really is a massive problem for the US, which it really needs to sort out.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrsSallyBakura

It is of my opinion that liberals in the United States are interested in changing laws asap because they see a problem, and the easiest way to fix the problem is to pass a law that involves more regulation the the government.

I will give a local example. Much to Europeans' surprise, there are cities that have liberal culture. I live near a few of those cities. One of them is the kind of liberal that has a bunch of white people who proclaim diversity, have artistic and scientific elitists, the university students are your typical "I am enlightened and that makes my opinion worth something" types, they think that all conservatives are gun-loving gay bashing idiots, and, well, you get the picture.

While I love your stereotyping of 'liberals', you do realise that is not even the right stereotype. <facepalm> It would help you if you studied what liberalism is before talking about it.

PS You will find that most Americans actually come under the banding of pure liberals or classic liberals and despite your remarks about 'Europeans' beliefs, that is how they are mostly seen. It is just most Europeans think classic liberalism belongs in the past.

Quote:

Anyways. Last year or so, they decided to pass a law that required cars to stop at all crosswalks (that are not connected to regular traffic lights) if there was at least one person who needed to cross. When the law was first established, there were no crosswalk signs or lights or anything. So naturally, police gave tickets to a crap load of people for not remembering their stupid and impractical law.

Granted, now for the most part they have the proper lights and signals to indicate crosswalks and when people will be crossing. But they passed the law before they had the proper equipment to make the law practical.

So why did they pass it in such a rush?

Well, because in the progressive mindset, if you see a problem, a law needs to be passed about it right away, even if it doesn't make sense to pass it. They saw that people couldn't cross crosswalks in a reasonable amount of time, so instead of taking the time to build traffic lights at those crosswalks, they decided to blame the big mean cars and punish them for being big mean cars.

For liberals, passing a law like that is "fixing the problem," except all that it is doing is putting a bandaid on the problem, which doesn't do a whole lot of good for anyone. At least since it was a local law, it was easier to actually perform the surgery needed after a while, but I think that if people didn't complain about it, the city would have just kept the bandaid.

This has been a Law in the UK for decades and we have never had any problems; it would be my guess that despite your wonderful theory being based on...errr....well nothing but your own presumptions, you are actually wrong and when this law was passed the only mistake the legislators made was thinking that the average driver would have the brains and initiative to stop their cars without needing a giant sign to tell them to do so. They only put up signs later because they realised that thinking normal people had even the smallest amount of intelligence was clearly very stupid.

PS Again, please for your own sake, look up Liberalism, you are only making yourself look foolish when you talk about Liberalism without even the smallest amount of appreciation for what it is.

Quote:

So in regards to this topic, regulating gun control even more in a society that has several other problems, such as:
Lack of awareness of mental health treatment
The expense of treating mental health issues
The lack of a significant father figure in the CT shooter's life
Broken families and divorce rates
Violent movies and video games (now before you yell at me, I think that banning these things is stupid. However, moms need to stop buying their angelic sons Call of Duty when they are only 10).
The media's reaction to shooters - the way that they become famous after committing such a horrible crime

Perhaps there are more factors that I am not taking into consideration.

Ok, luckily I counted to 10 before posting, but again please, really please, sally stop posting about things you do not understand, and it is really very very very very very clear you have no understanding what so ever about mental health problems and your comments are really really really insulting.You do realise you have just basically lumped all of the USA's gun problems on those with mental illness despite the fact that most shootings are gang related and the fact that mental illness is a massive issue which really should not just be just lumped around as a way to defend gun owners. Oh and if mental illness is to blame, then the fact that over 45% of people in the US will suffer from mental illness at some point in their life means we really do not want guns being given out like candy. (Note I am being facetious with the last point in order to highlight that just saying, oh well gun problems are just caused by mental health issues is clearly far too simplistic an answer and dodges all the other real issues by making a straw man out what can be an already vulnerable and often misunderstood problem.

Quote:

Also, requiring that guns be locked up would not be a bad idea. Not sure how many people are going to obey that law and how they are going to regulate it, but at least encouraging people to do that might make a difference.

You would be amazed how many would follow it, but that aside, again, read my comments, this is addressed.

Your points on liberalism are correct fared that the liberals in America are hardly even liberal, really they are just a confused emss of ideology. However for the liberal democrat party of America that is sadly about right, they aim for progression but do not think about consequence, though thats mainly due to having no single political aim. Some in the liberal party are socialis, some classical liberal, some neo-liberal, some conservative and they have to please everyone thus causing negative consequences.

The republicans have an idea of what they are doing and have a more united ideology however the ideology is too much based on tradition and inequallity.

And yeah, Americans, classical liberalism (which the republicans support) has been shown on many occasions to completely fail compared to modern liberalism and scialist policies. Such examples are the conditions in industrial revolution era England and the great depression, while modern liberalism and socialism have been shown to succeed with keynesianism and greater government contribution to peoples livelyhoods.

First, I have already rebutted all this and it would have saved you a lot of time to have just read that, rather rehashing the same tired and ill-thoughtout defences of what really is a massive problem for the US, which it really needs to sort out.

While I love your stereotyping of 'liberals', you do realise that is not even the right stereotype. <facepalm> It would help you actually had any idea what liberalism is.

PS You will find that most Americans actually come up the banding of pure liberals or classic liberals and despite your remarks about 'Europeans' beliefs, that is how you are seen. It is just most Europeans think classic liberalism belongs in the past.

This has been a Law in the UK for decades and we have never had any problems; it would be my guess that despite your wonderful theory being based on...errr....well nothing but your own presumptions, you are actually wrong and when this law was passed the only mistake the legislators made was thinking that the average driver would have the brains and initiative to stop their cars without needing a giant sign to tell them to do so. They only put up signs later because they realised that thinking normal people had even the smallest amount of intelligence was clearly very stupid.

PS Again, please for your own sake, look up Liberalism, you are only making yourself look foolish when you talk about Liberalism without even the smallest amount of appreciation for what it is.

Ok, luckily I counted to 10 before posting, but again please, really please, sally stop posting about things you do not understand, and it is really very very very very very clear you have no understanding what so ever about mental health problems and your comments are really really really insulting.You do realise you have just basically lumped all of the USA's gun problems on those with mental illness despite the fact that most shootings are gang related and the fact that mental illness is a massive issue which really should be just lumped around as a way to defend gun owners. Oh and if mental illness is to blame, then the fact that over 45% of people in the US will suffer from mental illness at some point in their life means we really do not want guns being given out like candy. (Note I am being facetious with the last point in order to highlight that just saying, oh well gun problems are just caused by mental health issues is clearly far too simplistic an answer and dodges all the other real issues by making a straw man out what can be an already vulnerable and often misunderstood problem.

You would be amazed how many would follow it, but that aside, again, read my comments, this is addressed.

I think what was meant more when sally was talking about crime and mental health, is that Crimes such as those committed in newtown and other places are never committed by sane, healthy individuals.
Most crime in general is committed with handguns, by criminals looking to make a quick $ from robbery and theft in various forms. Most are committed by people who are, for all intents and purposes, sane. That is why they don't commit crimes such as those in newtown. Because they KNOW it's either prison or suicide, there is no other way out.

So really sally is not wrong, just not differentiating between normal crime and mass murder crime, and between sane criminals and insane criminals.

+ While 45% of people in the US will suffer mental problems in their life, the vast majority will be age related (alzheimers, ect...). Those with mental problems which lead them to commit mass crimes are often born with these leanings towards such acts, OR have them instilled into them in childhood. The reasons can be complex and deeply hidden, but the result is the same. Better ways to spot this early on would help significantly.

Don't try and play that card.
Even if laws had been DRAFTED the same day as Newtown, they still wouldn't have been able to debate, pass, sign off and then enforce any kind of ban or limitations before now.

Australia got it passed in 12 days and it's worked over there. If you blame a particular group of people what do you think will happen? People can be really cruel :( It's easy to say 'that person was obviously not sane' but there are a lot of people who just like to be horrible to others and you'd be painting innocent vulnerable people with the same brush, people who are far more likely to be victims then hurt others. Regulations is not banning, it just makes it harder for people to get guns and there shouldn't be anything wrong with that D: People should have to prove above and beyond that they're responsible enough to own a gun. There have already been a lot of good ideas in previous posts, such as maybe people can go to a place run by professionals instead if they want to use guns that they normally wouldn't be able to buy (such as that really big gun biggles posted) but it seems people don't want to change or do anything that could affect them in any way (again though if you're responsible with guns it wouldn't really affect you). A lot of people want whats easier for them personally and what happens to others is someone else's problem. If it works in several different countries then why not try it? It's better than doing nothing

Australia got it passed in 12 days and it's worked over there. If you blame a particular group of people what do you think will happen? People can be really cruel :( It's easy to say 'that person was obviously not sane' but there are a lot of people who just like to be horrible to others and you'd be painting innocent vulnerable people with the same brush, people who are far more likely to be victims then hurt others. Regulations is not banning, it just makes it harder for people to get guns and there shouldn't be anything wrong with that D: People should have to prove above and beyond that they're responsible enough to own a gun. There have already been a lot of good ideas in previous posts, such as maybe people can go to a place run by professionals instead if they want to use guns that they normally wouldn't be able to buy (such as that really big gun biggles posted) but it seems people don't want to change or do anything that could affect them in any way (again though if you're responsible with guns it wouldn't really affect you). A lot of people want whats easier for them personally and what happens to others is someone else's problem. If it works in several different countries then why not try it? It's better than doing nothing

Australia =/= america

ANY law on guns will take a long time to get through the US government, because of the opposition it would have.
Also, passing laws quickly is actually usually a bad idea. Not always, but it leaves doors open to bad decisions.

As to the rest,

Quote:

It's easy to say 'that person was obviously not sane' but there are a lot of people who just like to be horrible to others and you'd be painting innocent vulnerable people with the same brush

, i'm not certain what you mean here? Could you elaborate some more please.

Don't try and play that card.
Even if laws had been DRAFTED the same day as Newtown, they still wouldn't have been able to debate, pass, sign off and then enforce any kind of ban or limitations before now.

A never said they could pass it in one day, but this is clearly an issue which the USA has been trying to dodge and duck its way around for the last ten to twenty years and it is now reaching boiling point and something needs to start happening. If the USA had dealt with properly in the first place, maybe we would not be in this place right now, but as it is, we are, so we have to do with what we have. That is why you elect representatives, so they can take affirmative action. Note, affirmative is not the same as rushed.

In answer to your previous question, the truth is crime with death trolls of up 10...etc has been very common in the USA since the 80's (the same time it Liberalised its gun laws...hmmm.) However, now it is white middle American's who are dying and not those doomed to a life in the slums of the big cities. This means people in the media, and thus soceity at large, take more notice. I know that is a cruel thing to say, but it does not make it less true.

Quote:

Originally Posted by biggles1

Australia =/= america

ANY law on guns will take a long time to get through the US government, because of the opposition it would have.
Also, passing laws quickly is actually usually a bad idea. Not always, but it leaves doors open to bad decisions.

As to the rest, , i'm not certain what you mean here? Could you elaborate some more please.

The Aussie system is actually a tri-parte system with a hybrid mix between common law and federalism so it is a very good comparison to the USA.

Also, there is a difference between rushed and quick, as I said. An example of rushed law is the Dangerous Dogs Act, which was simply passed without full consultation, another example however is the Theft Act, now this went through the full parliamentary review process and took a long time to get sort, but unfortunately those given the job of drafting it rushed their final draft for reasons I cannot disclose and so what we were left with was one of the worst pieces of law ever made. A law which meant that a man who took an battered door which someone was going to fell out anyway got arrested for theft, while the judiciary were left tying themselves in nots to try and sentence obvious fraudsters and thieves. This shows that something can be rushed and still take a long time.

I think she means that just because you are a criminal or do a bad thing does not mean you are mentally unwell, which if that is what she means, I agree with.

Australia got it passed in 12 days and it's worked over there. If you blame a particular group of people what do you think will happen? People can be really cruel :( It's easy to say 'that person was obviously not sane' but there are a lot of people who just like to be horrible to others and you'd be painting innocent vulnerable people with the same brush, people who are far more likely to be victims then hurt others. Regulations is not banning, it just makes it harder for people to get guns and there shouldn't be anything wrong with that D: People should have to prove above and beyond that they're responsible enough to own a gun. There have already been a lot of good ideas in previous posts, such as maybe people can go to a place run by professionals instead if they want to use guns that they normally wouldn't be able to buy (such as that really big gun biggles posted) but it seems people don't want to change or do anything that could affect them in any way (again though if you're responsible with guns it wouldn't really affect you). A lot of people want whats easier for them personally and what happens to others is someone else's problem. If it works in several different countries then why not try it? It's better than doing nothing

A never said they could pass it in one day, but this is clearly an issue which the USA has been trying to dodge and duck its way around for the last ten to twenty years and it is now reaching boiling point and something needs to start happening. If the USA had dealt with properly in the first place, maybe we would not be in this place right now, but as it is, we are, so we have to do with what we have. That is why you elect representatives, so they can take affirmative action. Note, affirmative is not the same as rushed.

In answer to your previous question, the truth is crime with death trolls of up 10...etc has been very common in the USA since the 80's (the same time it Liberalised its gun laws...hmmm.) However, now it is white middle American's who are dying and not those doomed to a life in the slums of the big cities. This means people in the media, and thus soceity at large, take more notice. I know that is a cruel thing to say, but it does not make it less true.

The Aussie system is actually a tri-parte system with a hybrid mix between common law and federalism so it is a very good comparison to the USA.

Also, there is a difference between rushed and quick, as I said. An example of rushed law is the Dangerous Dogs Act, which was simply passed without full consultation, another example however is the Theft Act, now this went through the full parliamentary review process and took a long time to get sort, but unfortunately those given the job of drafting it rushed their final draft for reasons I cannot disclose and so what we were left with was one of the worst pieces of law ever made. A law which meant that a man who took an battered door which someone was going to fell out anyway got arrested for theft, while the judiciary were left tying themselves in nots to try and sentence obvious fraudsters and thieves. This shows that something can be rushed and still take a long time.

I think she means that just because you are a criminal or do a bad thing does not mean you are mentally unwell, which if that is what she means, I agree with.

Australia may have a similar system, but the US government is notoriously inefficient. Especially the current one.

obviously there are exceptions, but it seem to me that such a wide-reaching and important law needs more than 12 days to be shown to be the best course of action.

Of course not all criminals are mentally unwell, and not all the mentally unwell are criminals.
BUT, the people who commit mass murders, have you ever found one who wasn't a sociopath? Didn't have some kind of unstable mental background? As I have said before, the people who commit such crimes are never sane people. Criminal or otherwise. Because sane people know such action is certain death, one way or another.

Yu-Gi-Oh is the property of Konami and Kazuki Takahashi. We are only a parody, we are not breaking any laws nor intend to. See our disclaimer and terms of use. You can also contact us. Maybe you even want to read our about us page. Smileys by David Lanham. Hosted by Cthulhu.... Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn